The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

[hyroot]

ohh you dont like the NY times, not trendy enough? not like an Episodic Network TV Show, where all the "Real Reporting" happens..

ok smart guy, how about this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JB004307/pdf

Mount Aetna farts out ~2000 tonnes of co2 every fucking day at the minimum, and has for Thousands Of Years
and when it starts farting, as it did in 2004 and 2005, it belches out up to FOURTY TIMES MORE every god damned day, and thats just ONE volcano.

theres 3000 more on the land, and nobody knows how many under the oceans

you got a smartass answer for that?

thats more reputable source. it supports what degrassi said.it states it increased from that volcane in 2004 - 2005 than earlier eruptions. the ppm ratio is still very minimal

 

[hyroot]

that "ice bridge" is irrelevant (and imaginary).

he was talking about a nasa AERIAL MAPPING PROGRAM in MOTHERFUCKING GREENLAND (on the opposite side of the continent form alaska...) that was CALLED "ice bridge" but had nothing to do with ice bridges.

it was aircraft flying over glaciers to map them.

and the glaciers were in GREENLAND FOR FUCKS SAKE!

hyroot is a dumbass.

everyone on here has proved each of your posts wrong. so whose the dumbass i think its youuuu

 

[sheskunk]

everyone on here has proved each of your posts wrong. so whose the dumbass i think its youuuu

I never proved any of his posts wrong.

 

[heckler73]

Coal Porter

Nat King Coal?

Meanwhile, over at David Archer's video lectures, it seems he's redone his 2009 lectures (which had shitty resolution and gimped audio) in Coursera format. Now one can pick and choose topics without having to wade through padding.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Conceptual Continuity EDIT: Here's a link to his vid on Coal. It is 4:20 in length.
http://www.kaltura.com/tiny/n3jls

 

[Dr Kynes]

thats more reputable source. it supports what degrassi said.it states it increased from that volcane in 2004 - 2005 than earlier eruptions. the ppm ratio is still very minimal

well then let us assume mt aetna is a "normal" volcano, and it emits 2000 metric tonnes of co2 every day, when it is NOT farting.

2000x 365= 730,000 tonnes of co2 annually.

there are MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND volcanoes on the surface of the earth (not under water)

730,000x3000=2,190,000,000 tonnes of co2 per anum, JUST from quiescent (not erupting ortherwise acting up) volcanoes on the surface

thats 2.19 GIGATONNES per year, which is far more than 500 megatonnes that NGT stated,
note: kilauea emits 8500 metric tonnes of co2 per day, so aetna is a very low baseline
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253082800_Carbon_dioxide_emission_rate_of_Kilauea_Volcano_Implications_for_primary_magma_and_the_summit_reservoir

note also, thats JUST volcanoes, theres also geysers, fumarols, vents, and many other geologic NON-Volcano sources, as well as natural weathering of carboniferous rock, etc etc etc. and this doesnt even include undersea volcanoes vents fumarols, black smokers, and tectonic expansion joints which are an unknown quantity

the previously posted link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

details the great degree of UNCERTAINTY over geological co2 emissions.

 

[Dr Kynes]

everyone on here has proved each of your posts wrong. so whose the dumbass i think its youuuu

nope. bucky found ONE math error, and ginja pointed out that Nitrogen is not a "greenhouse gas", technically, cuz i was looking an the numbers frm n2o which IS a greenhouse gas.

the rest is all screeching opinions, shrill hyperbole and mad claims by fools like you.

so, tell me, what part of alaska has an ice bridge to russia and greenland again?

dont try to hide behind the skirts of your betters (which is damning them with faint praise)

they at least make an effort to support their claims, and sometimes succeed.

 

[hyroot]

well then let us assume mt aetna is a "normal" volcano, and it emits 2000 metric tonnes of co2 every day, when it is NOT farting.

2000x 365= 730,000 tonnes of co2 annually.

there are MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND volcanoes on the surface of the earth (not under water)

730,000x3000=2,190,000,000 tonnes of co2 per anum, JUST from quiescent (not erupting ortherwise acting up) volcanoes on the surface

thats 2.19 GIGATONNES per year, which is far more than 500 megatonnes that NGT stated,
note: kilauea emits 8500 metric tonnes of co2 per day, so aetna is a very low baseline
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253082800_Carbon_dioxide_emission_rate_of_Kilauea_Volcano_Implications_for_primary_magma_and_the_summit_reservoir

note also, thats JUST volcanoes, theres also geysers, fumarols, vents, and many other geologic NON-Volcano sources, as well as natural weathering of carboniferous rock, etc etc etc. and this doesnt even include undersea volcanoes vents fumarols, black smokers, and tectonic expansion joints which are an unknown quantity

the previously posted link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

details the great degree of UNCERTAINTY over geological co2 emissions.

wow. Its been said by several people already. But your math is bad! Please read your links before copy and pasting. It should take you much longer than your posts.

 

[hyroot]

nope. bucky found ONE math error, and ginja pointed out that Nitrogen is not a "greenhouse gas", technically, cuz i was looking an the numbers frm n2o which IS a greenhouse gas.

the rest is all screeching opinions, shrill hyperbole and mad claims by fools like you.

so, tell me, what part of alaska has an ice bridge to russia and greenland again?

dont try to hide behind the skirts of your betters (which is damning them with faint praise)

they at least make an effort to support their claims, and sometimes succeed.

I supported every claim I made. Or have you forgot. It must be lonely in your world. It must drive you crazy that you are still wrong. I just prey to god you are not a real doctor.

 

[Dr Kynes]

wow. Its been said by several people already. But your math is bad! Please read your links before copy and pasting. It should take you much longer than your posts.

really, detail where my math is bad.

is 2000 x 365 NOT 730,000? cuz it IS

is 730,000 x 3000 not 2,190,000,000? cuz it IS.

is 2,190,000,000 metric tonnes not 2.19 Gigatonnes? cuz it IS.

is 2.19 Gigatonnes actually smaller than 500 Megatonnes? cuz it AINT

so put up or STFU

 

[UncleBuck]

wow i guess he did say ONE of the claims.

looks like his reputation may be overstated.

he used bullshit numbers and flawed assumptions to develop his assertion of 500 megatonnes per anum.

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

the bullshit is expanding geometrically.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/26/us/yellowstone-park-emits-tons-of-carbon-dioxide-study-finds.html

ohh look yellowstone park's Mud Volcano emits 176,000 short tons of co2 per year, EVERY year for... THOUSANDS of years. and thats JUST A SMALL PART of the yellowstone caldera system

theres over 3000 active surface volcanoes on the earth, and nobody knows how many under the sea, and nobody knows how much co2 comes from the tectonic expansion joints.

he took an assumption, turned it into a strawman, and beat the shit out of it. but it was for the popular press, not a journal so i guess he felt the need to get in a few cheap shots.

thats not all hyroot claimed though...
but where does he say "man made machines are making 90% of the co2 emitted every year"?
where does he state that "all the forests were cut down"?

the mystery deepens

can't do exponents, but knows better than astrophysicists.

 

[UncleBuck]

really? my citation, from the IPCC's own numbers is FRAUD???

you simply must explain that one bucklefuckle.

im listening

leaving out half the fucking equation on purpose was the fraud part, dummy.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think you're making that up. Or Tyson doesn't know shit outside his field.

red also knows better than astrophysicists.

lullerskates.

 

[hyroot]

really, detail where my math is bad.

is 2000 x 365 NOT 730,000? cuz it IS

is 730,000 x 3000 not 2,190,000,000? cuz it IS.

is 2,190,000,000 metric tonnes not 2.19 Gigatonnes? cuz it IS.

is 2.19 Gigatonnes actually smaller than 500 Megatonnes? cuz it AINT

so put up or STFU

you are still wrong. Making up numbers.. Like I said read. I already put up. Do you have short term memory issues.. Smack your fore head again. You need a reboot

 

[Dr Kynes]

I supported every claim I made. Or have you forgot. It must be lonely in your world. It must drive you crazy that you are still wrong. I just prey to god you are not a real doctor.

no you did not.

BUCKY managed to prove NDT actually said that crazy line, and beat the shit out of a strawman

you (and everyone else) have FAILED to demonstrate that there is EVER an "ice bridge" across the bering sea, or that "Project Ice Bridge" has ANYTHING to do with ice bridges, alaska, or russia, nor did you prove that this AERIAL MAPPING PROJECT was actually dudes on the ice, making baking soda volcanoes or breeding fruit flies.

you have failed miserably to support your claims.

 

[UncleBuck]

well then let us assume mt aetna is a "normal" volcano, and it emits 2000 metric tonnes of co2 every day, when it is NOT farting.

2000x 365= 730,000 tonnes of co2 annually.

there are MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND volcanoes on the surface of the earth (not under water)

730,000x3000=2,190,000,000 tonnes of co2 per anum, JUST from quiescent (not erupting ortherwise acting up) volcanoes on the surface

thats 2.19 GIGATONNES per year, which is far more than 500 megatonnes that NGT stated,
note: kilauea emits 8500 metric tonnes of co2 per day, so aetna is a very low baseline
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253082800_Carbon_dioxide_emission_rate_of_Kilauea_Volcano_Implications_for_primary_magma_and_the_summit_reservoir

note also, thats JUST volcanoes, theres also geysers, fumarols, vents, and many other geologic NON-Volcano sources, as well as natural weathering of carboniferous rock, etc etc etc. and this doesnt even include undersea volcanoes vents fumarols, black smokers, and tectonic expansion joints which are an unknown quantity

the previously posted link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

details the great degree of UNCERTAINTY over geological co2 emissions.

kynes with his back of the eggo box calculations is probably more accurate than the entire body of science we have on the issue.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you are still wrong. Making up numbers.. Like I said read. I already put up. Do you have short term memory issues.. Smack your fore head again. You need a reboot

making up numbers?

did i not offer direct evidence from peer reviewed journals demonstrating that the numbers are correct?

or are you just literally retarded?

 

[UncleBuck]

nope. bucky found ONE math error

you have been caught lying and omitting information over and over and over, actually.

shall we review?

 

[hyroot]

no you did not.

BUCKY managed to prove NDT actually said that crazy line, and beat the shit out of a strawman

you (and everyone else) have FAILED to demonstrate that there is EVER an "ice bridge" across the bering sea, or that "Project Ice Bridge" has ANYTHING to do with ice bridges, alaska, or russia, nor did you prove that this AERIAL MAPPING PROJECT was actually dudes on the ice, making baking soda volcanoes or breeding fruit flies.

you have failed miserably to support your claims.

nope I provided it. Look back. You are still wrong. You still need a reboot.

 

[UncleBuck]

really, detail where my math is bad.

is 2000 x 365 NOT 730,000? cuz it IS

is 730,000 x 3000 not 2,190,000,000? cuz it IS.

is 2,190,000,000 metric tonnes not 2.19 Gigatonnes? cuz it IS.

is 2.19 Gigatonnes actually smaller than 500 Megatonnes? cuz it AINT

so put up or STFU

can you cite something besides your back of the eggo waffle box calculations?

some scientific work stating 2.19 megatonnes?

 

[Dr Kynes]

leaving out half the fucking equation on purpose was the fraud part, dummy.

the other half of the equation was irrelevant to the issue.

he made no claims about sinks, nor did i.

but you think the IPCC's own numbers are fraud, if they are used by anyone other than the faithful adherents to the cult of AGW